In The Influencing Machine, Gladstone seems to present the following ideas as her thesis: "The media machine," and the news establishment by extension, "is a delusion. What we're really dealing with is a mirror" (xxi). As a result, "we get the media (and the news) that we deserve" (156). What is (are) the counter-argument(s) to Gladstone’s thesis? How would you defend it (them)? How does it (do they) compare in terms of strength/validity?
The mainstay of Gladstone's thesis is that the media is a reflection of its consumers; therefore, consumers are responsible for the media machine. But, the mirror that Gladstone describes is only a mirror in the sense that it reflects the apparent interests of the audience. And, this mirror is not an accurate mirror but rather a funhouse mirror. To argue with Gladstone, I think it is important to focus on how drastically the interests of the audience are distorted before they are reflected in the news. As we have discussed in class, most readers and viewers do not have the time to seek out the very best information. For the sake of convenience, consumers simply grab the nearest newspaper or click onto the most popular website or TV news channel. So, the media is not so much reflecting the interests of consumers as it is reflecting the limits of their time and effort.
It seems tremendously unfair to blame consumers for being a little lazy and wanting convenient news. It is especially harsh to say that the audience that does not demand better news does not deserve better news. Alone, the individual consumer may simply feel powerless to make any demands of the media. Yet, the individual media producer is not powerless to make improvements in the media.To blame consumers for being content with subpar news is, to argue with Gladstone, just a lame excuse for producing subpar news. Rather than making excuses, the media ought to take on the challenge of producing excellent news without losing popularity. Unlike Gladstone, I think that this is the kind of news that everyone deserves.
Charlotte Cooley
Charlotte Cooley
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo customer in a restaurant deserves poor treatment no matter how bad his or her temper or behavior is. The same should be applied to the media. Whether the consumer finds celebrity gossip more interesting than a news channel because of convenience does not mean they should suffer with subpar news as Charlotte stated. News channels should hold their ground and work for their own personal integrity and achievements just like any respectable business would.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Charlotte said, I find it harsh to blame consumers for being lazy and choosing the convenient news. Just because we are often “seduced by celebrity news” or “enjoy a good car chase” does not mean that we do not deserve better news (xxi). If the celebrity news or car chase was the first thing that came up when you turned on the TV, then you would most likely continue watching it. It interests you; it provides you with entertainment. However, that is not the only thing that you would want to watch forever. It was simply available and accessible at the time. If there were more high quality news on when you turned on the TV, you would have probably selected that instead. Consumers are enticed by what is convenient.
It is the media’s job to make themselves convenient to consumers and also to reward consumers with the high quality news that they all deserve. Instead of having many channels with subpar and par news, the media should participate in a fun game of competition. The media should be fighting with one another to provide the customer with the best experience possible no matter what their attitude may be or how they approach it. As any business would say, the customer is always right. So the media should treat each customer with highest esteem and provide him or her with the best experience, NOT necessarily what they deserve as Gladstone would argue.
The consumer should not have to deal with a one sided mirror and suffer from their own consequences. If you ordered something at a restaurant that you did not like, the restaurant would take care of you. The restaurant would never punish you for ordering something that you didn’t like. Instead they would take the meal off of you check and offer you a free dessert. The media should have the same hospitality for its consumers.
I actually agree with Gladstone’s thesis. The media is a product of the people in that it reflects the consensus and delivers nothing out of our wanted parameters. As we discussed in class, the media oftentimes causes us to dig deeper into our regular habits. For the better or the worse the media gives us what we want.
ReplyDeleteHowever there are some counterarguments to this thesis. What if, collectively as people, we don’t know what is best for ourselves? If that is the case then the responsibility lies in the hands of our moderators, or media producers. They are to guide us above the unnecessary or untrue and provide us with fresh, practical information.
Another counterargument is that as loyal consumers we deserve the truth and nothing short from it. But the truth isn’t always convenient, and it may be hard to take. So is it the fault of human tendency to want an easier path or the fault of mediators who provide it? I think media producers should take it upon themselves to report responsibly and tell us what we should hear, not what we want to hear. Yet this is a two way street, as consumers we must learn to appreciate the facts and learn to spot out the fiction.
- Omar Peña
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is a standard in everything that we do as a nation and news should most definitely have a standard. Going along with what Celine said, the news networks should not limit their efforts because they think the consumers are content with subpar news. The effort of the news channels reflects how well they are able to do their jobs. News channels are supposed to inform the public of the most pressing and important issues going on at that time. If they broadcast news that they "think" the consumer will enjoy instead of something much more important, they are not doing there jobs right, or as well as they could be.
ReplyDeleteWe saw a strong example of this happening this past week after the bombings in Boston. Nearly every news channel was reporting on similar topics regarding the bombing. On Wednesday a fertilizer plant exploded in a small town in Texas, killing 14 people and injuring 200. This was a devastating event that was not properly broadcasted because of the Boston bombings. Although Boston was an enormous news story that attracted viewers from around the world, the Texas explosion deserved more attention than it received.
Although they might think they can, there really is no way for the news companies to know exactly what consumers want. It seems that providing high quality news would be an easier task than guessing what will appeal to the consumers. This supports the idea that news companies should be coming up with high quality stories that are suitable for a wide variety of consumers.
-Maggie Barger
I completely agree with Charlotte. Yes it is true that most people just read, watch, or listen to the news that is most easily accessible to them rather than seeking out the news that is the most accurate and or detailed. However, if every news outlet made sure that the news they were broadcasting to the public was the most accurate and the most detailed then everyone would be properly informed, at least to some extent. I realize that this proposition is not really obtainable for reasons such as reporters wanting their news to get out the fastest. Yet if more of an effort was made to meticulously go over the facts being broadcasted I believe that a decent amount of this problem would be solved. I mean news should be accurate! I watch the news to know what is going on in my world, not to know of what may be going on or what is not going on. ultimately I don’t really care ho hard it is to make this change and improve our news, I think that it is something that must be done and that it is embarrassing that it is still going on after all of these years of people complaining!
ReplyDelete-Georgia
I agree to a large degree with the assertion and also slightly disagree with Charlotte. The media does reflect the interests and wants of the consumers. But, as I've said in class, the media is a business just like anything else. Don't other businesses create products that appeal to the interests and wants of their consumers? If you look at it this way, it is understandable why the media is a mirror of the consumers.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I also partially agree with Charlotte because I believe any business should try to create the best product possible, and that applies to the media as well. I do not believe that if a TV channel tried to create a great news program that the public would shun it for being too sophisticated. So, in that way, it is an excuse to create sub-par media because you think the public wants inferior and simple programming. The public doesn't want inferior programming, they just have no understanding of what great programming is (due to Charlotte's idea on limits of time and effort). Because of the public's lack of understanding, media companies can create average programming and get away with it while using the excuse that its what the public wants. The public cannot want what it doesn't know exists. These companies should create the best program they can every single time.
I also agree with Charlotte. I think that the media should attempt to produce excellent news. However the main problem with this idealistic hope for the media is that the people who are involved in the media need to eat. If one media producer placed such a concern on excellent news, rather than quick coverage and wide range of material then that media producer won't be able to compete with the other producers who aren't concerned with excellent news. This is because the media outlet's parent companies are only willing to pay the media producers who are producing high viewer ratings. It all comes back to business, maybe the main reason that there is a lack of excellent news out there is because it isn't as profitable as one would assume.
ReplyDelete-Jahmel Jordon
I also agree with Gladstone’s assertions that the media machine is pretty much a mirror. The media, like any other business, operates for profit, and it simply has to appeal to the consumers to be profitable. While I agree with Charlotte that most viewers simply do not have time to search for the best and most accurate information, I do not think that they will visit a certain website or go to a certain TV channel for convenience alone. Consumers will also go to a source that best reflects their interests and beliefs. They will tune into the channels that are aligned with their own viewpoints, and only actively search for the news that they are interested in. This means that the media will need to be a “mirror” of the consumer’s interests so that they can best capitalize on the potential profits. Sometimes, like Charlotte said, this would also require them to shape the consumer’s interest. In the end, everything in media comes down to the bottom line. Whether they win consumers by “mirroring” or distorting the consumer’s interests and beliefs doesn’t really matter. Neither does being the most accurate or convenient news source. Media will do anything and everything to ensure profits.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gladstone in that the media is a dangerous reflection of ourselves, but I don’t think this is what we “deserve” – I feel as though the media is to blame for this mirror, not us. Like what Eli Pariser said in his TED talk, the constant advances in technology are resulting in programs that analyze our every move and ultimately shelter us from ideas through the creation of “filter bubbles”. Omar slightly touched upon this in his comment by asking, “What if, collectively as people, we don’t know what is best for ourselves?” If the media continues to reflect what they believe we want, and continues to make filters bubbles around us, then we will become completely oblivious to what is happening in the world. Our main access to information is through news sources. How are we supposed to know if we enjoy hearing about news from New Zealand, if they don’t report about news from New Zealand? Just like what Nana Ferg says whenever she dishes a spoonful of Brussels sprouts onto my dinner plate, “You’ll never know if you like it unless you try it”.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, there is a major difference between what we want to hear, and what we need to hear. Just because I enjoy hearing about celebrity gossip, does not mean that it is more important than recent updates from North Korea. Indeed, some news can be very boring, but that boring information will definitely affect our lives far more than Lindsay Lohan’s new breast implants. You wouldn’t feed a child candy for the rest of their life simply because they like it more than broccoli, would you? No! You would give them balanced meals so that they can grow up big and strong, and then treat them to a piece of chocolate every once in a while. That being said, maybe I should try a Brussels sprout…
thanks for share...
ReplyDeleteTo a certain extent I agree with Gladstone's thesis. From a simple standpoint, why should a news outlet publish a story that they don't think their consumers would want to read/watch? My guess is that certain news stories, whether they be local or national, are picked based on what consumers have been attracted or not attracted to in the past - sort of like an unofficial survey, as it revolves around feedback.
ReplyDeleteIn theory, however, the news isn't necessarily a reflection of the consumer. If there is one thing I have learned in this class, it's that the media is very powerful. The media can publish literally whatever they want, and most people won't have the capacity to care/nor do something if it is not news they particularly want. I agree with Charlotte when she writes that people often don't have time to dissect their news stories, let alone realize they are absorbing news they deem to be subpar. I think most people assume the best of these media outlets; I for one have never had an issue with the news I receive, however, I concede that the media is definitely more than just a reflection of what we want. More often than not, there are forces at work behind the scenes, and the media is a prime example.
While I do agree with Gladstone's thesis that the media is a reflection of our interests and what we are requesting, I do not agree with her belief of “we get what we deserve.” How does one define “what we truly deserve”? Do some citizens deserve better news than others? I might come off as an optimist when I say I believe every citizen deserves the most current, purest and informative news, but I wholly believe this because that is how citizens remain aware of their immediate surroundings, country and world. At some point, the media must also take some fault. We cannot only blame the laziness of citizens for the lack of substance in the media as Celine and Charlotte stated. As we discussed in class, not all Americans have the time to look for all the facts and various news stories and with such an abundance of news and different stories, where do they start and most importantly, who do they believe? At some point media outlets need to stop reflecting mirrors on their consumers and take a moment to turn those mirors around and reevaluate themselves. They will soon realize that they are no longer holding up the integrity of the news, that instead of being honest and having their consumers in their best interest, they are swindled by money, ratings, biases and alliances. The Media SHOULD have the responsibility of providing the best and most accurate news and I don't think it is fair that we expect less from the media and are very skeptical of the media as a nation. Gladstone should not fully put the responsibility on the consumer because there are always two sides to the story.
ReplyDeletePerla
After reading both Gladstone’s work and Charlotte’s ideas about the “counter-arguments to Gladstone’s thesis,” I agree with Charlotte’s assertions. In fact, I would actual take what Charlotte stated as rebuttals and take them one step further.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that we have talked about this comment that Mr. Gordon has termed “satisficing,” or consuming the media, which we have time for and which we deem relevant, while sacrificing the deep details and intricacies that each story we read has to offer. However, I find that it is actually the media’s responsibility to adapt to this “fast-food” (Drinon) media. Gladstone states that consumers get what they deserve, but if what they can only “afford” is fast food media, then, in my own humble opinion, there should be both recognition and adaptation to these time constraints by media outlets. In essence, the counter argument is one that a peer as well as myself presented a few weeks ago. Media must own up to their identities (specifically, biases, attempts to appeal to certain audiences, etc.) in order to make the best news. While biased or perhaps skewed slightly, at least the mirror that is the media will become more of a reflective mirror than a fun-house one. Ultimately the transformation that would occur to a more clear vision in this mirror also creates validity behind the media’s view. In essence, the media must own whether it is Sportscenter (only showing the highlights) or if it is Pardon the Interruption (breaking down the games and analyzing the plays). (These two programs, in my mind, own their subsections of the media and news)
-Akaash
I find myself at a crossroads trying to identify with either Charlotte's position or Ms. Gladstone's position. I certainly agree with the assertion that the media is a reflection of interests, and I believe this for one fundamental reason- we have a choice in the media that we consume. With the exceptions of certain countries where particular media outlets are censored or banned, each consumer is entitled to the right to choose the type of media they care to view. For example, if I am the kind of person who cares about celebrity news than foreign affairs, when I come home I may ignorantly start searching for news on CNN until I find a program that most resembles Entertainment Tonight! I compare the relationship between consumers and media to the dynamic of a college fair. Colleges (news stations) decide what kind of institution they want to be and what kind of students (consumers) they want to draw, and once they set up their stands (programs) the students search around until they find the colleges that best match their interest.
ReplyDeleteThe Le_Meridian Funding Service went above and beyond their requirements to assist me with my loan which i used expand my pharmacy business,They were friendly, professional, and absolute gems to work with.I will recommend anyone looking for loan to contact. Email..lfdsloans@lemeridianfds.com Or lfdsloans@outlook.com.WhatsApp ... + 19893943740.
ReplyDelete